Mike Mearls on D&D Psionics: Should Psionic Flavor Be Altered?

WotC's Mike Mearls has been asking for opinions on how psionics should be treated in D&D 5th Edition. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that he'd hinted that he might be working on something, and this pretty much seals the deal. He asked yesterday "Agree/Disagree: The flavor around psionics needs to be altered to allow it to blend more smoothly into a traditional fantasy setting", and then followed up with some more comments today.

"Thanks for all the replies! Theoretically, were I working on psionics, I'd try to set some high bars for the execution. Such as - no psionic power duplicates a spell, and vice versa. Psionics uses a distinct mechanic, so no spell slots. One thing that might be controversial - I really don't like the scientific terminology, like psychokinesis, etc. But I think a psionicist should be exotic and weird, and drawing on/tied to something unsettling on a cosmic scale.... [but]... I think the source of psi would be pretty far from the realm of making pacts. IMO, old one = vestige from 3e's Tome of Magic.

One final note - Dark Sun is, IMO, a pretty good example of what happens to a D&D setting when psionic energy reaches its peak. Not that the rules would require it, but I think it's an interesting idea to illustrate psi's relationship to magic on a cosmic level."

 

[Li Shenron]

I agree that Ki could be the closest thing to psionics at the moment as a "source", but unfortunately there is a significant gap between the concept/flavor of a Monk and the concept/flavor of a Psion. The two COULD definitely be the same thing in a modern or sci-fisetting, but I don't think this could ever be a general case. The Monk is anyway way too martial by default, while a Psion could be often pretty much the opposite in a lot of settings, i.e. someone who doesn't need to fight or would fight very poorly. Yes, you COULD have a fantastic Monk/Psion character, but to make that the default would be a huge mistake. This means for example that you can't make the Psion a subclass of the Monk, otherwise it will always be only a martial Psion, and you won't have all the other non-martial Psion character options in your game.

On the other hand, making the Psion a subclass of the Wizard would be perhaps totally useless. Probably just a cocktail between Enchanter, Diviner and maybe Illusionist, which is something you can already do in a variety of way, just pick the right spells and re-flavor your character as "I don't learn spells from books, they just come from my mind". Actually, the main obstacle to remove would be spells components: if your powers come from the mind, then you definitely should never need your voice, your hands or external ingredients to use them.

That said, I don't think we need more than one Psion class, not even in a psionics-heavy campaign. Rather, it would be much better if the mechanics of psionics (granted by the Psion class for sure, but possibly also to other non-Psion characters by feats, racial abilities or even other classes' subclasses) would smoothly work when multiclassing. So then you could have your Monk/Psion, Fighter/Psion, Wizard/Psion or everything you want, instead of having many psionics classes.

 

[Remathilis]

This is exactly why we don't need psionics. At all. We've already got magic; (both arcane and divine) another set of "kewl powerz" would be altogether redundant.

I know! Imagine how much space the MM would of had if they got rid of devils and yugoloths. We've already got demons; another set of "evil fiendz" would be altogether redundant.

Though, that does explain why they are trying to fit ALL their campaign setting into Forgotten Realms; we've already got Toril another setting would be altogether redundant...

 

[Morlock]

Yup. It's a lot of hair splitting that people are super-passionate about. Just take a look at Kamikazee Midget's thread about the Artificer to get a perfect example of it.

It's not like we're talking about a robust, point-based, effects-based system here. It's pretty natural to look at something like D&D's magic system and want to chuck it, because it doesn't fit with one's setting concept. Few things are as tailored to specific settings as magic/psionics/whatever.

 

[Fralex]

I'd rather psionics not be from the Far Realm so much as the universe's response to the invasion of the Far Realm. "The Far Realm is a disease, and we are its cure." I thought that was a cool interpretation 4e had.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I think that's the most important consideration.

Psionics shouldn't require a separate book packed with layers of new mechanics and subsystems. If making psionics feel more "fantasy" or "D&D" encourages simplification and synergy with the existing rule set, then I think that's great. I never cared much for the pseudoscience fluff, regardless.

Psionics not replicating any current spells is an ultimately senseless goal. I can admire the effort to be original, but the Monster Manual already has plenty of creatures with historically/thematically appropriate "psionic" abilities that mimic spell effects. There's no need to to start gutting their stat blocks for the sake of originality.

If you don't want new mechanics, refluff the sorceror and move on. The hypothetical book isn't for you, nor should it be. Otherwise we get a scenario like Savage Species, where people who don't want to use content dictate the design of something they never intend to use.

Psionics should absolutely NOT be spells. We have frankly too many classes using spells as is, to the point where this edition is looking more homogenized than 4th edition. Class design cannot evolve if a few players want to shout down any whiff of creativity or unique mechanics with "use spells". Crapping out yet another 1-9 level casting class and slapping "psi" in front of spells is an insult to the actual fans of psionics or the settings where they play a major role.

Mearls is right, make it unique, or don't bother. 2nd edition got it largely right, in terms of power structure and limitations of what an individual psion could do, making powers not 100% reliable as opposed to fire and forget spells, etc.

Not a fan of making the Far Realm the SOURCE of psionics, as that should be internal. He has the relationship reversed - I see Far Realm creatures USING psionics because they don't have gods or follow our rules of magic.

 

[steeldragons]

There is a fundamental difference of opinion, even among people that WANT psionics, as to what "good" psionics means in terms of flavor as much as mechanics and powers.

There are some who want/think D&D psionics are this?
View attachment 68757View attachment 68758View attachment 68759View attachment 68760

This? View attachment 68761

Or this or that? View attachment 68762View attachment 68763

Then there's these...is it this?
View attachment 68764View attachment 68765View attachment 68766

So the implementation [crunch/mechanics] and, to the original question, the flavor (and so any changes thereto) need to take into account what is the Psionics they are trying/want to present? Past editions have done, unsuccessfully for many attempts, all of them. 5e, with its interest in simplicity and streamlining, I think, might benefit from a "select one direction to present/work for a full class first...add the rest later and/or as separate sub-classes under existing classes and/or feats."

 

[Jester David]

Such as - no psionic power duplicates a spell, and vice versa.

I'd disagree with this for symmetry. Because there ARE spells that read minds, move objects, creates fire, etc. It's super hard to have a pyrokinetic character - aka a Firestarter - and not have them do effects simmilar to a burning hands, scorching ray or fireball.

Psionics should just be a different source for magic, ala divine or arcane. Don't just duplicate spells, give them the same darn spells as needed. Something like detect thoughts or mage hand should just be on a psion's list.

Psionics uses a distinct mechanic, so no spell slots.

This gets tricky from a balance perspective. Spell slots are weird but they work. And you can freely swap between Vancian casting and spell points using the DMG.

One thing that might be controversial - I really don't like the scientific terminology, like psychokinesis, etc.

This is the tricky one. It's totally doable, and going for a more fantastic feel might help sell psionics. But those terms are kinda legacy now, after 35+ years in the game.

But I think a psionicist should be exotic and weird, and drawing on/tied to something unsettling on a cosmic scale.... [but]... I think the source of psi would be pretty far from the realm of making pacts. IMO, old one = vestige from 3e's Tome of Magic.

I'm not sure what they refers to... Old psions and psionicists were not much like binders IIRC.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I dislike having the sci-fi element of psionics in my fantasy game, so he can leave the whole thing out of D&D AFAIC. And Mike apparently agrees with me, as he wants to get rid of the thing that makes psionics psionics, the pseudoscience nomenclature.

 

[Grakarg]

I'd like to see Psionics use Int as a stat primarily.
I think that classes currently overly rely on wis and cha, and that Int is basically a dump stat for everyone but a wizard,which seems weird to me.

I think Psionics should be set up in a way that would allow any DM that chose to use it exclusively in their worldbuilding and be able to replace std arcane/divine magics. Like a sci-fantasy setting to go with the rules for laser pistols they already gave us. It could be some fun stuff!

 

[Mercule]

The biggest thing they're going to run into is the fact that if indeed they make it a single class with 2 to 3 sub-classes, players will have to accept that the range of combat power in the psionic character won't be nearly as great as they have been previously. You're going to be looking at the combat potential spread that you find in the various Cleric domains. All have the same hit points, all have fairly comperable armor and weapon use, all are missing fighting styles, extra attacks etc.

Which means that those people who were hoping for a much wider range of psionic characters... the Psychic Warrior matching the combat power of the Fighter down through the Psion matching the combat power of the Wizard... that won't come across with only a single class. Instead... if we did want that kind of range-- you'd really need to create the psionic mechanics that are different and separate and can be layered on top of the existing classes. So a sub-class of the Fighter than uses psionics (like a psionic EK), a sub-class of the Rogue that uses psionics (like a psionic AT), a sub-class of the Sorcerer that uses full psionics, etc. If that's the kind of range people want for their psionic characters, that'd probably the direction they'll have to go.

Unless of course they just create 3 or more entirely new classes for psionics, but to me that kind of wastes the point of having sub-classes in the first place.

Or, they could create the Psion base class with a handful of sub-classes (per 3E, for lack of better guide) and add a new Psychic Warrior and/or Soul Knife (probably steal from both) sub-class to Fighter that works vaguely like the Eldritch Knight, but with psi-flavor/mechanics. You could do the same with Lurks and Rogue. I'm not sure you need Wilder but, if Sorcerer isn't redundant with Wizard, then having two base full-psionic classes wouldn't be bad. You could probably do a conversion of Ardent as a Wilder sub-class in the same way they ported Favored Soul. I'd leave Divine Mind in the ditch, though.

Assuming some sort of "Elminster's Guide to Psionics" book, I see no reason why adding these classes would be problematic in terms of either too many new classes or too few concepts. If psionics were to be release via Unearthed Arcana, well... the first article might be quite large to get enough powers available.